Billboard proclaims "Nobody is born gay"

[dyresand]

Religion is good at keeping people bigoted.

when we point it out they go in their shells and start cowering in fear because we are right.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do not 'hate' gays any more that I 'hate' the blind, the bipolar, or diabetic, which is to say not at all. That's projection on the part of obvious bullies. That said, I feel fully justified in expressing indignation against behaviors and beliefs that do not align with natural law. All I hear on the other side is rationalization of perverse desires (both homo- and heterosexual) and an inordinate obsession with sensuality.

[Silver]

It is interesting that many psychopaths have the same aversion to natural sexual activities as do theists.

[Simon Moon]

I do not 'hate' gays any more that I 'hate' the blind, the bipolar, or diabetic, which is to say not at all. That's projection on the part of obvious bullies. That said, I feel fully justified in expressing indignation against behaviors and beliefs that do not align with natural law. All I hear on the other side is rationalization of perverse desires (both homo- and heterosexual) and an inordinate obsession with sensuality.

What do you mean by 'natural law'?

The following is a short list of species that have homosexual encounters, some long term, on a fairly regular basis:

Lions (long term male-male relationships)
Penguins (lesbianism)
Elephants (long term male-male relationships)
American bison
Bonobo chimps (our closest relatives)
Amazonian dolphins
Sheep

Are these animals following 'natural law'?

[Cato]

I do not 'hate' gays any more that I 'hate' the blind, the bipolar, or diabetic, which is to say not at all. That's projection on the part of obvious bullies. That said, I feel fully justified in expressing indignation against behaviors and beliefs that do not align with natural law. All I hear on the other side is rationalization of perverse desires (both homo- and heterosexual) and an inordinate obsession with sensuality.

Funny, all I hear on the other side is rationalization of perverse discrimination and an inordinate obsession with spirituality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That said, I feel fully justified in expressing indignation against behaviors and beliefs that do not align with natural law.

Until you can demonstrate that this alleged "natural law" 1) exists in the context of this issue and 2) comes down against gays, I feel fully justified in calling you a bigot.

This has nothing to do with bullying. Unlike the people who draw inspiration from your defense of bigotry who then go out to beat the shit out of gays just 'cause, I can't -- and wouldn't -- beat the shit out of you just because you're a bigot.

But don't ever expect any quarter from me on the matter, until you can mount a logical explanation for what is clearly a matter of personal feelings. Now that I see that all your florid language is simply a disguise for such bigotry, I will point this out every time you deign to weigh in on the matter, because it's a tenet of mine that bigotry should be pointed out wherever it is seen.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Natural Law: The doctrine that human affairs should be governed by ethical principles that are part of the very nature of things and that can be understood by reason."

Other animals do not have the same rational capacity as humans, therefore they cannot discern the nature of things by use of reason. Why on earth would any of you justify any human behavior on the grounds that lower forms of life behave in a specific manner. Black widows kill their mates. Should we? Of course not! Animal comparisons are absurd.

[Silver]

Of course not! Animal comparisons are absurd.

Not when humans are animals. What is the theistic aversion to the natural understanding of humans being of the animal kingdom?

It is, however, absurd to compare humans to acorns.

[KevinM1]

I do not 'hate' gays any more that I 'hate' the blind, the bipolar, or diabetic, which is to say not at all. That's projection on the part of obvious bullies. That said, I feel fully justified in expressing indignation against behaviors and beliefs that do not align with natural law. All I hear on the other side is rationalization of perverse desires (both homo- and heterosexual) and an inordinate obsession with sensuality.

"Natural Law: The doctrine that human affairs should be governed by ethical principles that are part of the very nature of things and that can be understood by reason."

Other animals do not have the same rational capacity as humans, therefore they cannot discern the nature of things by use of reason. Why on earth would any of you justify any human behavior on the grounds that lower forms of life behave in a specific manner. Black widows kill their mates. Should we? Of course not! Animal comparisons are absurd.

That's a long winded way to say you don't like it because you think it's icky.

[Jenny A]

"Natural Law: The doctrine that human affairs should be governed by ethical principles that are part of the very nature of things and that can be understood by reason."

Other animals do not have the same rational capacity as humans, therefore they cannot discern the nature of things by use of reason. Why on earth would any of you justify any human behavior on the grounds that lower forms of life behave in a specific manner. Black widows kill their mates. Should we? Of course not! Animal comparisons are absurd.

We are animals. Certainly that's not a reason to murder our mates. But that sexual organs can be used to procreate is no reason not to use them for other purposes. There's nothing sanctified about them. If there is a creator, he/she/it saw fit to put the sewage system straight through the sexual zone. If nothing else that shows at least a little levity about their purpose.

If I apply my reason to my sex organs, I conclude that they promote the production on endorphins, bonding, and babies. They are more likely to get cancer if unused and more likely to contract venereal disease if used indiscriminately. I conclude that endorphin production and bonding are perfectly rational uses for them. What sex I play with to that end is irrelevant. Baby production is a choice, and not always a good one.

There is nothing "natural" about only using them for the purpose of producing babies.

When you turn your noise up at gay sex, I don't think it's your reason talking, it's your gut. The problem is that the idea offends your sense of taste. Haggis offends mine, but I don't think it is therefore immoral.